Elaborating on the function of mass-market paperbacks in this day and age. The wholesale market is/was a notoriously inefficient way of selling books; you'd sometimes have to ship two books to sell one, with the unsold one ending up stripped and pulped on a conveyor belt somewhere. I once visited a wholesale distribution center in Florida and witnessed sights no reader or writer should ever see: entire assembly lines devoted to stripping and pulping unsold paperbacks. It was the abattoir of authors' dreams. BUT . . . one of the big reasons for still selling books that way was because, in theory, that's how you hooked new readers, and got them into the habit of reading. Bookstores are great, but they're mostly frequented by people who already love books. The drugstores and grocery store racks were where you went to get the impulse buyers -- and hopefully turn them into the sort of people who frequent bookstores. Or at least that was the idea back before ebooks and the internet.
It doesn't seem like we've seen any eBook-exclusive releases lately either. Are they officially done? That would be both a nice way to release some content in months without a TP, and also to maybe have some stories set in the other corners of the universe that aren't going to be covered by the TPs. Granted, I have no idea how profitable those are, considering their usual price point.
They haven't been restarted since the license was renewed, but there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they could come back at some point in the future. After all, e-books are a major part of the market these days.
Yeah, Star Trek has always been the most prolific of the tie-ins that I’ve picked up - back in the day, my high school years, when I was picking up Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy, and Angel, the broad expectation I had in a given year was about 24 books for Trek, six for Star Wars, and maybe four or five of Buffy and Angel combined. And looking at the ones I collect today, at best the non-Trek and Star Wars have been one, MAYBE two in any given year. If that. As someone who enjoys the things I love being multi-media and allowing these expansions to them beyond what’s on screen, I’d love to see the regular production of books go back up, not just for Star Trek, but even for these other franchises (even if I understand that they’re dormant/ended for other reasons - no need for tie-ins when what they’re tying in to is not longer in production). As someone on an increasingly slim budget, I kinda appreciate the slow down for the sake of my wallet. Ebb and flow of the Great Material Continuum, my friends.
I don’t mind having around 8 books per year if it means that the most enticing books make the cut. All killer, no filler, as the saying goes.
Noticed there is a new Titan novel in January. It’s set in the darkest timeline but I won’t let that stop me enjoying it. I wonder if Boilmer is in it? That would be good.
I remain puzzled by the perception that the Picard timeline, in which the worst thing that happens is that the Federation outlaws AIs and reneges on its efforts to evacuate the Romulans, is darker than the novel timeline, in which the Borg invade en masse and destroy dozens of entire planets, Andor secedes, the Federation president is assassinated, etc. etc.
i think the fact Picard quit is what make fans think that show has the darkest timeline. His loss of hope makes fans think that future is hopeless. Personally I can’t see him quitting helping people even if he quit Starfleet but that is a debate for another thread
They made Picard a pathetic old man and had Riker’s kid die from a disease that needed a robot brain to cure. Not a fan. It’s a Community reference. We don’t know yet what beloved character has turned evil. I’m sure that’s coming
Yeah, but he got his hope back at the end, the same way Pike did in "The Cage" and Sisko did in "Emissary." That's how stories work. Even upbeat stories usually start out bad, get worse, and then get better at the end. Or if it's a tragedy, they don't get better. It's the end of the story that determines whether it's light or dark, not the beginning or the middle. The problem is that Trek is serialized now, so you have to watch the whole season to see the end of the story, and people are rushing to judgment before they get there.
Exactly. There was lots of stuff on the episodic series that was as darker or darker than anything in PICARD, but it was all happily resolved within sixty minutes and then never spoken of again. I mean, look at "Operation--Annihilate!" Kirk's brother AND sister-in-law die in agony; entire planetary populations are wiped out; Kirk's nephew is orphaned under horrific circumstances. Or "The Paradise Syndrome," in which Kirk's pregnant wife is stoned to death before his eyes. How is Riker's (unseen) kid dying of a terminal disease "darker" than that? And incurable diseases have always been part of Star Trek. Look at "Metamorphosis," "For the World is Hollow . .. ," "Sarek," Irrumodic Syndrome, etc. Heck, Data's daughter died tragically of an incurable condition and that episode is fondly recalled as a tear-jerker. The only difference, it appears, is that tragedies seems more tragic when they're serialized.
That, and the fact that the new stuff is more recent. The illusion of nostalgia is a well-understood psychological phenomenon. We tend to downplay our memories of unpleasant stuff from the past, as a sort of defense mechanism, or just because we don't like to think about them as much. So over time, the bad stuff from the past fades out relative to the good stuff, and that creates a falsely rosy picture of the past. Newer things always seem worse to us by contrast, because the bad stuff is more immediately apparent. In short, never trust your brains, people. They're always trying to trick you. You have to question everything they tell you, or there's no telling what they'll get away with. Sneaky bastards...
Remember when O'Brien spend twenty years inan inhumane prison, killed his cell mate, got seriously traumatized (more than usual), tried to kill himself and then was totally fine next episode and it was never brought up again? I'm still bitter about that.
"The Mark of Gideon": Kirk's new love interest deliberately contracts a terminal disease so she can spread it to her people, killing off enough of them to relieve their overpopulation crisis. And that's where the episode leaves things, with the Enterprise sadly leaving the poor planet behind to suffer through a global epidemic . . . . Can you imagine if one of the new CBS series did that plot? The internet would be awash with folks indignantly insisting that this was too "dark" for Star Trek and that Gene Roddenberry would have never allowed such an episode to air.
On a semi related tangent, there are times I wish real life could be like episodic television. Then the pandemic could be done and forgotten a long time ago and we'd all be getting ready for a feel good Christmas special.
I’d sooner aim for a Doctor Who Holiday episode, myself - a Dalek invasion counts on my 2020 bingo board.